TITLE
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO AND ARTURO C. MOJICA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
SENATOR RALPH G. RECTO AND SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004
EN BANC
FACS
After President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo succeeded the presidency, she nominated then Senator
Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as Vice-President which the Congress confirmed, thereby leaving a vacancy in
the Senate. Senate Resolution No. 84 called on the COMELEC to fill the vacancy via a special election to
be held simultaneously with the regular elections of May 2001. Per the resolution, the candidate with
the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Guingona.
After the votes of the May 2001 election have been canvassed, the COMELEC provisionally proclaimed
13 candidates as the elected Senators on June 5, 2001 where Ralph Recto and Gregorio Honasan ranked
12th and 13th, respectively. This was petitioned by 2 taxpayers and voters enjoining the COMELEC from
proclaiming with finality the candidate for Senator receiving the 13th highest number of votes. They
contend that COMELEC has no jurisdiction as (1) it failed to notify the electorate of the position to be
filled in the special election (2) it failed to require senatorial candidates to indicate in their certificates of
candidacy whether they seek election under the special or regular elections (3) it failed to specify in the
Voters Information Sheet the candidates seeking election under the special or regular senatorial
elections.
In their Comments, COMELEC, Honasan, and Recto all claimed that a special election to fill the seat of
Senator Guingona was validly held on May 14, 2001. COMELEC and Honasan raised mootness of the
petition. Honasan also claimed that the petition is actually a quo warranto petition and which the Court
should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Recto on the other hand contended that he is not a party to the
case as he is the 12th ranking in the election.
On July 20, 2001, COMELEC declared “official and final” the ranking of the 13 Senators proclaimed who
took their oaths of office on July 23, 2001.
ISSUE
Whether a special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate seat was validly held on May 14, 2001.
RULING
Under Section 9, Article VI of the Constitution, a special election may be called to fill any vacancy in the
Senate and the House of Representatives “in the manner prescribed by law. To implement this provision
of the Constitution, Congress passed RA No. 6645 which states, (SECTION 1) “…the Commission on
Elections, upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy and calling for a special election, shall hold a special
election to fill such vacancy.” RA 7166 which amends Section 2 of RA 6645 states, “In case a permanent
vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration
of the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty
(60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such
vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular
election.”
Although COMELEC did not state in any of its resolutions or press releases that it will hold a special
election for a single three-year term Senate seat simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14,
2001 and did not give formal notice on the proclamation as winner of the senatorial candidate receiving
the 13th highest number of votes in the special election, it does not negate the calling of such election.
In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that expressly provides that an election
to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections fixes the date at which the special election
is to be held and operates as the call for that election. Consequently, an election held at the time as
prescribed is not invalidated by the fact that the body charged by law with the duty of calling the
election failed to do so. This is because the right and duty to hold the election emanate from the
statute and not from any call for the election by some authority and the law thus charges voters with
knowledge of the time and place of the election.
In the case at bar, Section 2 of RA 6645 provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special
election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election.
Accordingly, the special election to fill the vacancy in the Senate arising from Senator Guingona’s
appointment as Vice-President in February 2001 could not be held at any other time but must be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular elections on May 14, 2001. The law charges the voters
with knowledge of this statutory notice and COMELEC’s failure to give the additional notice did not
negate the calling of such special election, much less invalidate it. Petitioners have neither claimed nor
proved that COMELEC’s failure to give this required notice misled a sufficient number of voters as would
change the result of the special senatorial election or led them to believe that there was no such special
election.
